Wednesday, May 29, 2013
The Ethics of Animal Experimentation
In the Stanford article you will read tonight, the author contends the following: "Some people argue that all animal experimentation should end
because it is wrong to treat animals merely as tools for furthering
knowledge. According to this point of view, an animal should have as
much right as a human being to live out a full life, free of pain and
suffering. Others argue that while it is wrong to unnecessarily abuse
animals, animal experimentation must continue because of the enormous
scientific resource that animal models
provide. Proponents of continued animal experimentation often also
point out that progress can still be made to improve the conditions of
laboratory animals and they fully support efforts to improve living
conditions in laboratories, to use anesthesia appropriately, and to
require trained personnel to handle animals." Do you agree or disagree with either of these positions? Why? Please incorporate parts of tonight's reading into your answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After reading over the article, I feel that I most agree with the "middle ground" when it comes to animal experimentation. While I believe that animal experimentation is useable, there should be a plethora of rules and guidelines that a "trained professional" must follow. I strayed away from the "For animal experimentation", because it embraces an idea that I do not believe in. In the article it says, "Defenders of animal experimentation usually argue that animals cannot be considered morally equal to humans. They generally use this claim as the cornerstone of an argument that the benefits to humans from animal experimentation outweigh or “make up for” the harm done to animals." I believe that animals can be morally equal to humans. They have emotions, they feel pain, and they form communities similar to ones that we have. I feel that we as humans feel that we are better than animals when we aren't necessarily better than them in every way. Also, while experimentation can occasionally benefit us, it can also harm not only the animal tested, but also the population, which isn't ok. I was also not completely comfortable with the 'Against Animal Experimentation.' In the article it says, "The claim is that animals should be afforded the same level of respectful treatment as humans; in short, we should not have the right to kill animals, force them into our service, or otherwise treat them merely as means to further our own goals." While I agree with most of what is said here, I do feel that animals should be killed if the circumstances are right. I have meat everyday and if we didn't kill cows, this wouldn't be possible, and some of the food we eat everyday would no longer be available, but, I do agree that we should hunt as much as we do in this country. Doing this could dangerously lower certain animal populations, potentially making them extinct. For these reasons I decided to side with the middle ground which suggests that animal experimentation be a last resort and that it is taken seriously and executed with the upmost care. I believe that we can still get as much done, with destroying and manipulating animals as much as we do now.
ReplyDeleteI find myself agreeing mostly with the "Middle Ground" described in the Stanford article. Animal experimentation should be avoided if there is an alternative way to run gather the data. Something I found interesting was the idea that animals' moral significance can be ranked by the complexity of the animal. Personally, I don't feel bad picturing experiments being run on fruit flies, but the idea of mice and dogs being used makes me uncomfortable. I understand that animal experimentation supporters don't see the animals they are using as being on the same moral level. This idea was completely debunked for me later in the reading however. It's ironic that the animals used are similar enough to humans that the data is considered valuable, but that they are not on the same "moral level". I find it strange that scientists can believe in both of these conflicting ideas.
ReplyDeleteI, too, agree with the "middle ground" position described by the article. I do believe that animal experimentation is very useful, especially with rats because there are many of them and as far as I know they don't contribute too much. However, I do also believe that animal experimentation is in a lot of ways inappropriate and wrong. The thought of experiments being performed on animals I interact with on a daily basis like cats and dogs make me uncomfortable, but, like Alex, I don't really see anything bad in experimenting on fruit flies. I definitely agree that if animal experimentation should take place, whoever is carrying it out should make sure that the animal isn't experiencing much pain and suffering as a result of the experiments.
ReplyDeleteOne argument used by many pro-experimentationists is the idea that humans are somehow more valuable than other animals, that the more complex an animal (in terms of its cognitive abilities) the more inherent its value. Humans believe they have more value than, say, an earthworm, or cyanobacteria, and this hierarchy Liou points out in her article: "This reflects a belief in a hierarchy of moral standing with more complex animals at the top and microorganisms and plants at the bottom".
ReplyDeleteThat Lamarkian view is entirely subjective, relative to the human who speaks; the idea of value itself is man-made, so of course we set the parameters. Instead of a question of rights, this becomes a question of values...and in my mind, no clear separation exists between humans and animals at all. We share this life together. So the "golden rule" ought to apply to every living thing. (who are we to decide who lives and dies?) But I actually do believe animal experimentation is acceptable when humane to the subject. Only do to an animal what you could do to another human.
I completely disagree with the use of animals in experiments for furthering the knowledge of humans. I think this is wrong and awful no matter how much these scientists try to sugar coat it with the whole deal about the middle ground, saying that they will do their best to improve the environment for these animals. I honestly think it's sick, and these people should be ashamed of themselves. All of these articles went on and on about how helpful animals have been in furthering our knowledge about humans, but it is completely unfair for scientists to assume they have the right to determine the future of an animal just because they think they aren't at the same "moral status" as us. I mean honestly, what is this crap? ALL BEINGS should be treated with the same respect. To me, all of these scientists are cowards. The only reason they use animals for experiments is because they don't know what is going to happen, and they don't want to risk something going wrong where a human loses his or her life. They are ignorant to think that animals don't have emotions or can't feel. Even the idiot scientists who do know that animals have these abilities are stupid to think that the suffering and pain of an animal is less important than that of a human. In one of the articles, there was a heading that said "Human Experiments, Human Lives." I completely agree with this. If you are going to try to advance the knowledge about human life, use human models. If anything, a human model will provide more accurate results since they are of the same species. "Human Experiments, Human Lives." Plain and simple.
ReplyDeleteEven though you have heard this from several people already so far, I would have to say that I fall on the "Middle Ground" according to the Stanford article. I see that animals don't deserve to be treated as "tools" in animal experimentation, experiments that can often be painful for the animal. Yet performing experimentation to further research seems promising and almost necessary to understanding and possibly finding cures or treatments to diseases such as cancer. So I guess I agree with both positions mentioned in the prompt.
ReplyDeleteAs I discussed in class, I believe that the discoveries that scientists have made through animal experimentation are beneficial to human life. Obviously, I would never wish pain or death on a creature, but I spoke my opinion in class that I find it hard to say that I wouldn't rather save a human's life if there was an opportunity to do so, regardless of what took place. I wouldn't say that I am necessarily FOR experimentation, as I am aware of the effects of it, I just know that I can understand it. I guess this puts me in "Middle Ground" as far as the Stanford article goes.
ReplyDelete